The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[Mike Lavigne]

I just read a fascinating interview with Javier Guadalajara of Wadax in the January 2022 issue of Absolute Sound and found several of his statements that might be relevant to the discussion:

“Our philosophy is to recreate… the physical sensation of connection that comes from listening to music …by questioning accepted wisdom…ultimately including the listener in the program …to fasten on the things we felt were missing: the expressive and emotional elements in the performance, the way in which the brain activates key responses and reacts to specific kinds of signal degradation…This fundamentally different understanding of the listening process is our core principle.”

In essence: how to retain the emotional content in the signal.

To me the lesson from Mr.Guadalajara is clear: music is emotion. So how successful a system is in reproducing a musical event, depends on how well it retains the emotional content of the original performance. Not An easy feat, and one to which those lucky enough to have heard Mr. Guadalajara’s Wadax DAC, can attest.

So if you believe in the above assumption, then one appropriate language for judging a musical system is to develop criteria that measure or describe how well the system retains the emotional content of the original musical performance.

i have to agree. the jump in the emotional connection to the music with my move a few weeks ago to the Wadax Ref dac and server has been quite profound. the A/B direct compare left no doubt that the emotion is there in the data to be revealed. he absolutely delivers on these things.

and working through learning about the Wadax from/with Javier the attention to detail and depth of thinking really has been impressive. and i assume i'm just scratching the surface.

 

[bazelio]

In the 40 odd commercial recordings and mixes that I was part of I've NEVER seen/heard outlines and pinpoint images during any of the irrespective of mic'ing techniques. Close up mic'ing doesn't create any outline or pinpoint images, this stuff is pure hifi and artifacts of some components. This is a clear example how terminology led to unnatural and fake audiophile paraphernalia. Something maybe @tima wants to address in this thread.

david

LOL. I don't know about "outlines" whatever that is, but distinct image locality absolutely. Maybe not when the reference playback is a PA or when music is too loud for the room. Not all mics pick up ambience or certainly not to the same degree. And spatial variation to a musician and to adjacent musicians certainly can create an effect. I can also engineer a sound that moves all over the soundstage. It's true that sounds don't permeate enough in many or maybe even most hifi systems. Sound doesn't radiate from loudspeakers the way it does from acoustic instruments in the first place, and the problem can certainly be further exacerbated by the electronics. But I also hear problems on the opposite end of the spectrum where systems smear the soundscape to an unrealistic extent as well - probably in an attempt to (over)compensate. Live unamplified acoustic music in a concert hall isn't the right reference for everything in all environments. I don't want Exile on Main Street to sound like the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

 

[ddk]

LOL. I don't know about "outlines" whatever that is, but distinct image locality absolutely. Maybe not when the reference playback is a PA or when music is too loud for the room. Not all mics pick up ambience or certainly not to the same degree. And spatial variation to a musician and to adjacent musicians certainly can create an effect. I can also engineer a sound that moves all over the soundstage. It's true that sounds don't permeate enough in many or maybe even most hifi systems. Sound doesn't radiate from loudspeakers the way it does from acoustic instruments in the first place, and the problem can certainly be further exacerbated by the electronics. But I also hear problems on the opposite end of the spectrum where systems smear the soundscape to an unrealistic extent as well - probably in an attempt to (over)compensate. Live unamplified acoustic music in a concert hall isn't the right reference for everything in all environments. I don't want Exile on Main Street to sound like the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Nobody wants Exile on Main Street to sound like a symphony hall then you have a very distorting system.

The contested term is pinpoint imaging and outlines are part of it, a very different thing than the soundstage and instrument location within it, even moving moving ones.

Yes systems can and do smear everything but I don’t see smearing and muddy mess as hifi glossary.

david

 

[andromedaaudio]

To me the lesson from Mr.Guadalajara is clear: music is emotion. So how successful a system is in reproducing a musical event, depends on how well it retains the emotional content of the original performance. Not An easy feat, and one to which those lucky enough to have heard Mr. Guadalajara’s Wadax DAC, can attest.

Sounds like a " sound " design goal.
To me its all about that .
Why even bother listening if a product doesnt convey the artist message well

 

[andromedaaudio]

One can write 3 pages full of audio vocabulary , while in the mean time it usually takes just 1 minute to evaluate a system by listening and draw a much better conclusion for yourself

 

[bazelio]

@ddk
Imaging and outlines are two different things to me. E.g. the sound of a triangle strike should have a localized origin and it should also permeate outward fairly unrestrained from that point, gradually decaying away. It has a location but not an outline.

 

[tima]

Why use the term “black background“ when we already have the term low noise floor? I think of the word background in the visual sense What is behind the instruments. Is it silent black space nothingness/ absence without border or is it a defined and energized space? I think of it as the latter. Hall ambience is even more specific to the particular recording venue and is used to describe the character of the specific space captured on the recording and presented by the system.

I refer to "inky black background" as a quote taken from a published review by a high profile writer.. There are other examples of "black background" or similar in the review literature. Many audiophiles see this artifact as a positive characteristic - I've heard raves "even blacker blacks." I have used the phrase myself in early reviews to describe what I heard from certain cables advertising themselves for noise reduction properties. And what I intended to describe was indeed blackness, absence, not energized space.

Whether that blackness is the same as a low noise floor, I leave to someone else, but I don't think they are equivalent. In some cases I believe it is an intended effect, perhaps an effort to filter certain frequencies or filter out electro-magnetic noise. Whatever the cause or intent the result, though pleasing to some/many, is an artificiality or synthetic construct - though some may argue that is true of all of music reproduction!

As I've said in this thread and elsewhere it is not the words or vocabulary but one's basis of preference and what we value in reproduction.

 

[tima]

The main objection I see to you point of view is who is the judge on being "closer to the live experience". The difference is so large and our individualism is so pronounced that I see little convergence in this aspect, except for the blatant cases.

Judgement about how closely a reproduce sound is to a live sound comes from the individual listener. You need to re-write that second sentence for clarity.

 

[ddk]

@ddk
Imaging and outlines are two different things to me. E.g. the sound of a triangle strike should have a localized origin and it should also permeate outward fairly unrestrained from that point, gradually decaying away. It has a location but not an outline.

Ok, what about pinpoint imaging and defined outlines you mentioned? This is the hifi terminology under question and how they became coveted values.

Quite often recorded music doesn't sound like live in-person music, depending on mic'ing techniques, production, etc. Defined outlines, pinpoint images during playback are often true to a recording. Whereas if the playback system instead diffuses the source material into a different presentation, even if some aspects of it are now more representative of the live experience, that can be to some people a highly undesirable coloration.

david

 

[DLS]

This has been fascinating read and has prompted me to think about how I put my system together and how I left that escalator of constant "upgrades" years ago. Going down rabbit holes attempting to recreate live music experiences drove me crazy for years. Where my journey took a real turn, though, was when I realized it wasn't the"inky black backgrounds," "suspension of disbelief" or the illumination of a "sound stage" or "pinpoint imaging" I should have been chasing, but instead, the ability of my system to allow me to forget, even for just a few moments, that I'm trapped in this body on this imperfect world, and transport me to a world created by artists who perceive and audibly share the world they experience. It's about the beauty, the art, whether the Beatles, Stones, Strokes, Bach, Mozart, or Glass. Everything else is a false path, at least for me.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Second, you talk about how close you feel to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience when listening to a stereo system. Here I am lost - I"ll take this on myself but I have no clue what it means to be close to the conceptual nature of an emotional experience.

Please feel free to delete the words "the conceptual nature of" -- leaving you with "an emotional experience."

 

[Ron Resnick]

First off, "suspension of disbelief" by all definitions is part of the language of reproduction. I don't believe you can redefine it into the sphere of the language of music or listening to live music. You can refer to it while being in state that brings you closer rather than farther to listening to live music but when you are in that state you are listening to a reproduction - no matter how close or far you think you are. And it is only in virtue of listening to a reproduction can your disbelief that you actually are doing so be suspended.

Yes, of course, "suspension of disbelief" relates to the reproduction of music and not to live music.

I don't have a problem with hi-fi adjectives like "pinpoint imaging" and "inky black backgrounds" and "tight bass" because I think they describe effectively and intelligibly sonic artifacts created by electronic components of stereo systems. I don't happen to like it when stereo systems create these kinds of sonic artifacts, but I don't see the point in criticizing the existence of or the employment of these adjectives.

I think "suspension of disbelief" is not merely one of these hi-fi adjectives. I think "suspension of disbelief" is a concept which takes a different investigative and explanatory path, and evaluates holistically and in greater totality the success of a stereo system in recreating the sound of an original musical event (Objective 1) or in creating a sound that seems live (Objective 3).

If the concept of "suspension of disbelief" is not appealing I offer my alternative formulation of "emotional engagement."

I like to evaluate components and audio systems according to how easily and quickly they allow my body and my mind to relax, to wipe my mind clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis, to connect me in a passionate way to, and to make me laugh or cry in reaction to, the music I love. This, to me, is the essence of “emotionally engaging.”

Both "suspension of disbelief" and "emotional engagement" are concepts and not adjectives. They are not helpful in allowing a reviewer to explain to his/her readers the sound he/she is hearing from a component or from a system.

I don’t think there is any useful or sensical way to quantify "suspension of disbelief" or “emotional engagement” between or among individual audiophiles. The “incomparability of interpersonal utility” is a fancy economics way of saying that there is no way to quantify that Fred likes vanilla ice cream more than Joe likes chocolate ice cream.

I think each of suspension of disbelief and emotional engagement is, unfortunately, uniquely personal, and only helps each of us as individuals to evaluate components and stereo systems according to our own idiosyncratic ears and to our own linear spectrum of greater or lesser suspension of disbelief and more or less emotionally engaging.

 

[PeterA]

This has been fascinating read and has prompted me to think about how I put my system together and how I left that escalator of constant "upgrades" years ago. Going down rabbit holes attempting to recreate live music experiences drove me crazy for years. Where my journey took a real turn, though, was when I realized it wasn't the"inky black backgrounds," "suspension of disbelief" or the illumination of a "sound stage" or "pinpoint imaging" I should have been chasing, but instead, the ability of my system to allow me to forget, even for just a few moments, that I'm trapped in this body on this imperfect world, and transport me to a world created by artists who perceive and audibly share the world they experience. It's about the beauty, the art, whether the Beatles, Stones, Strokes, Bach, Mozart, or Glass. Everything else is a false path, at least for me.

DLS, I suspect that many can relate to this. I know I was in a fun cycle of annual upgrades and continuous search for something ever new and different, specifically, something "more" from the listening at home experience. This was the direct result of my focus on sound rather than the experience of sitting there listening to music. Terms, reviews, and others had a lot of influence on my thinking. It took me a while to understand that what I really needed was simply a different way of looking at it: a different approach, a reassessment of values and new goal. More live music helped a lot, and thinking about what I heard live relative to many experiments with my system.

I don't know if that path was necessarily false. For me, it was necessary to get me to where I am now. Fortunately, I have few regrets and learned a lot along the way. I appreciate continuing to read from others about what they are doing and what they have learned.

 

[thedudeabides]

One can write 3 pages full of audio vocabulary , while in the mean time it usually takes just 1 minute to evaluate a system by listening and draw a much better conclusion for yourself

That says all you need to know regarding this thread.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I'm still wondering where all these audiophiles are who obsess about black backgrounds, defined outlines, pinpoint imaging, etc. I haven't met any. A thread looking for justification.

 

[bonzo75]

I'm still wondering where all these audiophiles are who obsess about black backgrounds, defined outlines, pinpoint imaging, etc. I haven't met any. A thread looking for justification.

They are around. A bit diffuse so you can't spot them. Just conceptually suspend your disbelief

 

[cmarin]

Sounds like a " sound " design goal.
To me its all about that .
Why even bother listening if a product doesnt convey the artist message well

Exactly! Why even bother listening?

So it may be helpful, without intending to derail the original topic, to expand the discussion beyond the language of reproduction and the language of music, to the language of how music sounds and the language of how the music makes you feel:

1. How you characterize/describe how the music sounds (i.e., the inputs to our ears), versus how you characterize/describe how the music makes you feel (i.e., the emotional reaction/output of.the sound reaching our ears). And these are clearly different descriptors.

In the former case, a number of descriptors have been offered including black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging etc.

In the latter case, many have offered various descriptors including emotional engagement, suspension of disbelief etc.

2. Whether the same characteristics/descriptors should be used above regardless of whether you’re describing live or reproduced music?

And in my view, these should both be the same descriptors, if the intent is the same: to get as close to the emotional reaction of the live event at home through a reproduced music environment.

 

[spiritofmusic]

They are around. A bit diffuse so you can't spot them. Just conceptually suspend your disbelief

Its their sharp outlines I can't miss as I bump into them, and their sledgehammer bass that make them bad neighbours, and that pinpoint imaging that makes them just so sharply argumentative.

 

[bazelio]

Ok, what about pinpoint imaging and defined outlines you mentioned? This is the hifi terminology under question and how they became coveted values.

david

It depends on what is creating the sound. Cookie cutter images I guess is what i'm assuming by outlines, and may not exist in the concert hall but they can be created on a recording. Depending on where I'm sitting in the concert hall, a performance may even resemble monoaural playback more than anything. But then ... I don't know ... Andy and Eric should not sound like they're sitting on each other's laps on the Unplugged record. There is a proximity effect created both by directional mics and the engineering. Small diaphram mics a foot from the guitars pick up a lot of detail and in play back, I should hear string texture and pick action clearly and in a fairly pinpoint fashion. If I was sitting in row 10 during that performance, I'm probably not going to be hearing it that way, yet it should be there when I listen to the record.

 

[Phoenix Engineering]

Huh?

I don't think words are demonized. Words are used to describe what we hear from stereo systems and from live acoustic music and where one of those is not congruent with the other. You don't need someone else to choose your words for you.

"Demonized" may be a bit strong, but I have been attacked on another site for using the acronym "PRaT" (Pace, Rhythm and Timing). While technically incorrect in the way it is often used, it enjoys a certain cachet among audio enthusiasts and IMO has some utility.

Reading this thread, I've come to a couple of observations:

A lot of the back-and-forth discussion is because the posters are conflating two entirely different realms of experience. Trying to describe the emotional experience of enjoying music is an entirely different domain (although not completely unrelated) than describing individual attributes heard while listening to music. Musical enjoyment is an individual experience and difficult to describe. Describing differences between instruments, venues, recordings, components, etc., by definition requires comparative language, the most obvious of which are metaphors.

Describing sonic attributes with technical language may be useful feedback for someone designing components (frequency, distortion, timbre, amplitude, etc.), and while the definition of these terms is fairly precise and appropriate for describing sound, they don't convey much useful information for subjective listening (stating that distortion dropped from 0.1% to 0.005% has little utility except for bench testing). Unfortunately, there isn't a dedicated vocabulary for sonic attributes, so the best anyone has come up with is to borrow metaphors from other realms of experience. Highs are "sparkling, bright, shimmering", midrange is "smooth, liquid, blooming" and bass is "fat, wooly, mushy, authoritative, tight, "sledgehammer", etc. None of those terms technically have anything to do with sound (including "black" background), yet as metaphors, they can describe subjective attributes of sound remarkably well without much further explanation.

I think the problem occurs when people try to use these terms when crossing over into the domain of musical enjoyment or the overuse (or misuse) of these terms. Also, metaphors by nature are making comparisons which requires a reference point; individuals may have different constructions of those reference points and therefore attribute slightly different meanings to the metaphor being used. Add the problem of translation into other languages along with cultural differences and it's not difficult to see why this can cause consternation among posters.

Until someone can come up with a dedicated vocabulary for sonic attributes where everyone can agree on the meaning of the terms, I don't think borrowing metaphors from another realm of experience is necessarily a bad approach.